conformity

• asch's findings -

  • on average confederates gave wrong answer 37% of the time - 1/3
  • 25% of participants never gave wrong answer
• asch's baseline procedure -

  • 123 American men
  • one card had standard line, other had comparison lines - one of comparison lines is clearly the same length
  • participants had to say out loud which comparison line was the same length of standard line
  • tested in groups of 6-8, one genuine participant others were confederates
• asch's (1951) aim - 


  devised a procedure to assess to what extent people will conform to the opinion of others even in a situation where the answer is certain
• definition of conformity - 


  a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
• asch's variables: group size -

  • varied number of confederates from 1-15
  • with 3 confederates conformity rose to 32%
  • any more confederates made little difference
• asch's variables: unanimity -

  • introduced confederate who disagreed with other confederates
  • one variation confederate gave correct answer and in another gave a different wrong answer
  • genuine participant conformed less often in presence of a dissenter
  • conformity decreased to less than a quarter of the level of the baseline procedure when majority was unanimous (when dissenter gave correct answer or a different wrong answer)
• asch's variables: task difficulty -

  • made standard line and comparison line more similar - harder to judge difference
  • conformity increased
• evaluation of asch: (limitation) artificial situation and task -

  • P: the task and situation were artificial
  • E: participants knew they were in a research study and may have gone along (demand characteristics) - identifying lines is relatively trivial and therefore no reason to not conform
  • E: fiske(2014) - groups did not really resemble groups we experience in everyday life
  • L: findings don't generalise to real-world situations, especially where the consequences of conformity might be important
• evaluation of asch: (limitation) limited application -

  • P: participants were American men
  • E: neto(1995) research suggests women may be more conformist - maybe because they're concerned about social relationships and being accepted
  • E: US is individualist culture - bond and smith(1996) conducted studies in collectivist cultures (eg china) and found that conformity rates are higher
  • L: asch's findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures
• evaluation of asch: (strength) research and support -

  • P: support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty
  • E: Lucas et al(2006) participants solved easy and hard maths problems - participants conformed more often (agreed with wrong answers) when problems were harder
  • L: shows asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity
• evaluation of asch: (limitation) conformity more complex -

  • P: Lucas et las study found conformity is more complex than asch suggested
  • E: participants with high confidence in their maths abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence
  • L: shows that an individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables but asch did not research the roles of individual factors
• Kelman(1958): types of conformity -

  • internalisation
  • identification
  • compliance
• types of conformity: internalisation -

  • person genuinely accepts the group norms
  • results in a private as well as public change of opinions/behaviour
  • change usually permanent because the attitudes have been internalised
  • change in opinions/ behaviour persists even in the absence of other group member
• types of conformity: identification -

  • conforming to opinions/ behaviour of a group because there is something about that group we value - identify with the group so we want to be part of it
  • publicly changing our opinions/ behaviours to be accepted by the group even if we don't privately agree with everything the group stands for
• types of conformity: compliance -

  • going along with others in public but privately not changing personal behaviours and/or behaviour
  • only a superficial change
  • particular behaviour/ opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops
• deutsch and gerard(1955): explanations for conformity -

  • developed two-process theory - two main reasons people conform:
  • informational social influence (need to be right)
  • normative social influence (need to be liked)
• explanations for conformity: informational social influence (ISI) -

  • agree with opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct - we accept it because we want to be correct as well
  • follow the behaviour of the group (majority) because we want to be right
  • cognitive process - to do with what you think
  • leads to internalisation - permanent change in opinion/behaviour
  • most likely in new situations where there's ambiguity
• explanations for conformity: normative social influence (NSI) -

  • we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked
  • emotional process- people don't like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected
  • leads to compliance - temporary change in opinions/behaviour
  • likely to occur in situations with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection
  • more pronounced in stressful situations where people have a greater need for social support
• evaluation of types of conformity: (strength) research support for NSI -

  • P: evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity
  • E: asch(1951) - interviewed his participants - some said they conformed cause they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval
  • E: when participants wrote answers down conformity fell to 13% - because no group pressure giving answers privately
  • L: shows at least some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them
• evaluation of types of conformity: (strength) research support for ISI -

  • P: evidence to support ISI from studies
  • E: Lucas et al(2006) - found participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when maths problems were hard
  • E: because when the problems were hard situation became ambiguous and they didn't want to be wrong
  • L: shows ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict
• evaluation of types of conformity: (limitation) unclear if its NSI or ISI -

  • P: often unclear whether its NSI or ISI at work in research studies or in real life
  • E: asch(1955) - found conformity is reduced when there is a dissenter
  • E: dissenter may reduce the power of NSI because they provide social support or may reduce power of ISI because they provide an alternative source of social information - both interpretations possible
  • L: hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations
• evaluation of types of conformity: (limitation) individual differences in NSI -

  • P: NSI doesn't predict conformity in every case
  • E: some people are greatly concerned with being liked - nAffiliators
  • E: McGhee and teevan(1967) found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
  • L: shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than for others - individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures
• social roles - 


  the parts people play as members of various social groups (eg parent, child, student, passenger) - accompanies by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role (eg caring, obedient)
• zimbardo(1970s) research -


  wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - because of sadistic personalities or their social roles
• zimbardo's(1973) stanford prison experiment -

  • mock prison in basement of psychology department at Stanford university
  • 21 men - student volunteers - tested as emotionally stable
  • randomly assigned to play role of prison guard or prisoner
  • encouraged to conform to social roles through uniforms and instructions on behaviour
• zimbardo's prison experiment: uniform -

  • prisoners - loose smock and cap - identified by number
  • guards - uniform reflecting role - wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades
  • uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individualisation) - more likely to conform to perceived social role
• zimbardo's prison experiment: instructions about behaviour -

  • prisoner further encouraged to identify with role through procedures - eg rather than leaving study early they could apply for parole
  • guards encouraged by being reminded they had complete power over prisoners
• zimbardo's findings related to social roles: guards -

  • guards took roles with enthusiasm - treating prisoners harshly
  • guards used 'divide and rule' tactic by playing prisoners off against each other
  • guards harassed the prisoners constantly to remind them of the powerlessness of their role - conducted frequent headcounts (sometimes at night) prisoners would stand in line and call out their numbers
  • guards highlighted differences in social rules by creating opportunities to enforce rules and punishments
• zimbardo's findings related to social roles: prisoners -

  • within 2 days prisoners rebelled - ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at guards - guards retaliated with fire extinguishers
  • after the rebellion was put down prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
  • 1 was released because he showed signs of psychological disturbance
  • 2 more released on 4th day
  • 1 went on hunger strike - guards tried to force feed then put him in 'the hole'
• zimbardo's conclusion relating to social rules -

  • guards identified more closely with their roles - became increasingly brutal and aggressive - enjoyed power
  • ended study after 6 days instead of intended 14
  • social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals behaviour - guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive
  • roles taken on easily by participants - volunteers such as prison chaplain even behaved as if it were a real prison
• evaluation of zimbardos prison experiment: (strength) control -

  • P: zimbardo and colleagues had control over key variables
  • E: selection of participants - emotionally stable and randomly assigned
  • E: this was one way the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings - if guards and prisoners behaved differently but were in those roles by chance than behaviour must be due to role itself
  • P: degree of control over variables increased the internal validity - can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
• evaluation of zimbardos prison experiment: (limitation) lack of realism -

  • P: didn't have realism of a true prison
  • E: banuazizi and movahedi(1975) argued participants were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming
  • E: participants performances based on stereotypes - eg guard said he based role on brutal character from film 'cool hand Luke' - explain why prisoners rioted, thought that's what real prisoners did
  • L: suggests that findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
• evaluation of zimbardos prison experiment: (strength) participants behaved as prison was real -

  • P: mcdermott(2019) argues participants did behave as if prison was real to them
  • E: 90% of prisoners conversations were about prison life - discussed how it was impossible to leave experiment before sentences were over
  • E: prisoner 416 explained how he believed the prison was a real one run by psychologists rather than the government
  • L: suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity
• evaluation of zimbardos prison experiment: (limitation) power of roles -

  • P: zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour
  • E: only 1/3 of guards behaved in a brutal manner - 1/3 tried to apply roles fairly - rest actively helped and support prisoners (sympathised, offered cigarettes, reinstated privileges)
  • E: most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
  • P: suggests zimbardo overstated his view that participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (eg personality)